Preview: Power & Social Norms• Conjoint Norms vs. Disjoint Norms• Bargaining Theory and Power– An example, Ethiopia DHS

• Four Expressions of Power – powercube.net– Power over, power with, power to, power within– As applied by NGO Raising Voices

• Three Forms of Power– Visible power, hidden power, invisible power

Conjoint Norms vs. Disjoint Norms

• So far:– Those who have social expectations and who may

sanction • Call them Senders, S

– Are the same as those who are expected to comply and may be sanctioned • Call them Receivers, R

• This is a conjoint norm– Probably the most frequent case, even when it

seems otherwise

Senders

Receivers

Senders

Receivers

Conjoint Norm Disjoint Norm

Racial Etiquette, U.S. South

• Black can’t offer handshake to white

• Blacks introduced to whites, not whites to blacks

• Whites address blacks by first name, blacks address whites as Mr., Mrs. Sir, Ma’am

• White motorists have right of way

• Never suggest that a white is lying

• Never demonstrate superior intelligence to a white

• Never laugh at a white person

• Negative sanctions by whites (including violence) against blacks, and by blacks against blacks:

• Anne Moody– Mother angrily directed her

at age six not to ask any questions about race

– Was rebuked by her mother when she and her siblings sneaked into white section of movie theater

– In adolescence, her mother ordered them to behave themselves and keep quiet around whites

Senders

Receivers

Caste Norms?

Senders

Receivers

Power & Bargaining

• Two or more people would gain by making a cooperative arrangement: a bargain

• There are two or more kinds of arrangement they could reach– each arrangement distributing benefits and

burdens differently to the cooperating individuals• Thus, different people prefer different bargains– although each prefers any of the bargains to no

bargain

Zone of Possible Agreement

Marriage Contract

• In many traditional settings, a man and a woman (or their families) could find it advantageous to form a marriage contract

• Within the range of mutually advantageous contracts, – are arrangements that favor one gender over

another, – or are roughly equal in distribution of benefits and

burdens

Bargaining theory: The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer

• Those with more resources will usually gain a greater share of the benefits of the bargain– It’s easier for them to walk away, so they can hold

out for a better deal• Example– Company town, high unemployment– Workers do better to increase their resources by

joining together to do “collective bargaining”

.A NEW WEAVE OF POWER, PEOPLE & POLITICS: THE ACTION GUIDE FOR ADVOCACY AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, Justice Associates

at powercube.net

What kind of power do you see in the respective images?

What are the main sources of power?

What are potential sources of power for the citizen?

More Resources Relevant to Bargain = More Bargaining Power

• Believed capacity for violence• Material wealth• Effective personal agency,

knowledge, information• Credible commitment• Recognized rights• Social ties, family support, other

beneficial affiliations• Holding a recognized authority

role in household, community, religion, state

• Control of formal institutions – such as IGO, state, NGO, business

• Effective customary, religious, or formal law that advantages one party over another

• Inherited patterns of beliefs that advantage one party over another– social conventions and social

norms, role expectations– factual beliefs about parties to

the bargain– identity – what someone like me

should desire, believe, do

• Ease of exit to alternative bargain

Marriage: Bargaining Resources at Individual and Household Levels

• Standard prediction: – Individual woman

• More income, education, material assets for an individual woman

• Increases her bargaining power, which leads to• More influence over decisions, increased self-confidence,

decreased domestic violence, etc.

– Household: woman relative to partner• More education, closer in age, more income relative to

husband• Increases bargaining power of woman and outcomes

favorable to her

But sometimes the reverse

• In some settings, more income, more education, more assets – has no effect on woman’s decision-making power and wellbeing – or makes women worse off

• Why?– Because unequal gender norms are a bargaining resource for

male partners• Mabsout & Staveren, 2010, Disentangling Bargaining

Power from Individual and Household Level to Institutions: Evidence on Women’s Position in Ethiopia, World Development 38(5):783-796.

Multilevel Model: Individual, Household and Institutional Levels

• Institution = unequal gender beliefs, social norms, practices– Source of bargaining power for advantaged male

partner• What factors, at what levels, decrease

women’s decision power?– (Decision power: DHS – make decision over own

health, over large purchases, over visits to relatives)?

Multilevel Model

• Less decision power by women in ethnic groups– Which more strongly support continuation of FGC– Where male partners more strongly think they have rights

against female partner • To get angry• Refuse financial support• Force unwanted sex• Have sex with other women

• Individual and household variables (women’s income, education, assets, etc.) now explain within-group variation in women’s decision power

Mabsout and Staveren Conclusion

• “Our findings suggest that for women living in a context of very unequal gendered institutions, policies may be advised to prioritize social change at the group level, rather than prioritize women’s individual level bargaining power.

• This finding seems to confirm the recent successes booked in sub-Sahara Africa with community-based empowerment approaches to eradicate engendered institutions.”

Four Expressions of Poweradapted from powercube.net

• Amy Allen: Beyond a zero-sum conception of male domination vs. female empowerment

• Power Over– One or more people constrain the choices of one

or more other people in a nontrivial way– Includes domination• but power-over can be for someone else’s benefit

Power With, Power To

• Power with– Capacity for collective action to attain ends– Includes solidarity• but solidarity can be used to dominate others

• Power to– Capacities of an individual to attain ends– Includes empowerment, and can include

resistance to domination

Power Within

• Power within – Individual agency

• Capacity to aspire• Capacity to decide• Self-worth, autonomy, resolve

• Note: sometimes programs measure self-efficacy (power within + power to) – but neglect to consider collective efficacy (power

with)

Bargaining Power and the Four Expressions of Power

• Power-over arises from greater control of relevant resources by power-holders

• More resources = more bargaining power• Build capacities and other resources of subject individuals

(power within, power to)• Subjects unite their resources to equalize bargaining

power (power with)• Also, subjects can work for coordinated shift to more fair

assignments of authority roles, removing that resource from unfair power-holders (power with)

SASA! Raising Voices, UgandaA Power and Social Norms Curriculum

• Violence against women and HIV; gender equality• Community-based approach to change harmful social norms

accepting violence and men’s power over women– Sustained values deliberations– Engage with all in community (not just one sector)– Positive in tone: benefits of a better future for all where power

relationships between men and women are more balanced – Integrated

• Engage with individuals, families and neighbors, community institutions and groups, and broader institutions such as the media or policymakers

• Activist rather than core group; organized diffusion is not explicit; no coordinated abandonment

This and next six slides courtesy of raisingvoices.org and Lori Michau

Power Concepts in Action

More learning…

What’s not working

Focus on Gender Roles▫ Creating anger / resentment /

pettiness ▫ Women and men didn’t want it▫ INSTEAD: kindness, valuing,

respect, care/love

Inclusion of diverse manifestations of VAW More focus on IPV Keep focus on power – will spin

off naturally

Three Forms of Poweradapted from powercube.net

• Visible Power: Observable Decision-Making– A can get B to do something B would not otherwise do

• Decision-making bodies – parliament, village elders• Can be overtly unfair, but more likely it seems fair

• Hidden Power: Non-Decisions – Controlling the Decision Agenda– For example, observable decision-making may seem fair,

but some concerns are systematically absent from the decision agenda• E.g., frequently found social norm that women can’t play a

public role, can’t speak on public matters

Invisible Power

• With face: – Powerful As, now or in the past, intentionally act to

shape the desires, aspirations, beliefs of powerless Bs, resulting in quiescence or fatalistic acceptance of unequal power by Bs

• Faceless:– No namable persons, maybe unintended in the past,

mostly unintended in the present – Inherited schemas & scripts: beliefs, social norms, roles,

authority relations, broader institutions that happen to result in systematic and unjust power inequalities

Power & Social Norms Conclusion

• Recognize that social norms that harm some people in the reference group – Can be held in place by the expectations of all in the

reference group– Even the expectations of those harmed!

• Hidden power: break the norm of silence– Equal voice for women, young men, or other

excluded– So that their concerns can be on the public agenda

• Even if they do not gain equal decision power

Power & Social Norms Conclusion

• Tools of this course can also help us understand faceless powers that result in systematic and unjust inequalities– Inherited schemas, factual beliefs, social norms,

roles, authority relations, broader institutions• Understanding how these faceless powers

work helps us better know how to change them